Yes
8% (260)

No
92% (2811)

3071 total votes.

The employees were enrolled in the city’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan, or DROP.

The program allows them to technically retire but go on working. They receive pension payments in a special account — while collecting a city paycheck — and are required to leave employment after five years of the dual payments.

The program has been vilified over the years as a double-dipping perk symbolic of the city’s giveaways to public workers, and also defended as a practical and efficient way to keep seasoned professionals on the job for the betterment of the city.

The DROP program was ended for new employees as part of a reform package enacted amid a fiscal crisis that drove the city to the brink of bankruptcy. Workers hired before 2005 may still participate.

Leon, 57, who had worked for the city since 1979, signed up for the program in 2008. When it came time to leave employment in June as required under the program, he said, he was not ready. Therefore, he argued in court, his departure was involuntary and he qualified for state unemployment payments.

“DROP forced me to leave after five years,” Leon told the U-T. “I had no option but to leave at the end.”

Hearing officer Jane Alshuler agreed in her ruling, writing, “The claimant neither quit voluntarily nor was he disciplined for misconduct. As such, the claimant is not disqualified for benefits under code section 1256.”

Leon told the U-T that the retirement picture for city employees changed dramatically after he entered the DROP program in 2008, effectively violating promises made by the city and voiding the contract he signed when entering the program.

The interest paid in the special deferred retirement account was lowered, and retirement health care benefits were curtailed, he said.

“In the middle of the game, they changed the rules,” Leon said, noting that he had penciled out a retirement that worked for him before the changes were made. By the time the required retirement date came around, he said, the math no longer worked and his departure was involuntary.

Leon estimated he’ll be on unemployment for six months, and collect $17,000 to $20,000. He said that money doesn’t begin to cover other lost retirement benefits. He said he plans to give it all to the Wounded Warrior Project.

As part of his DROP enrollment, Leon signed a document acknowledging terms of the agreement and initialed a specific clause stating he was “not pressured, coerced, intimidated or threatened” to enter the program.

Document

In his statement Friday, Goldsmith pledged to fight Alshuler’s ruling at the next level, which is the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. He said he would proceed to Superior Court if he did not prevail there.

“DROP is voluntary,” Goldsmith said. “To pay for benefits to people who aren’t eligible is tantamount unemployment fraud.”

The other former employee approved to collect unemployment is Jethro Hudgins, a former San Diego traffic officer whose benefit began in August 2012, Assistant City Attorney Paul Cooper said.

An aide for Interim Mayor Todd Gloria said DROP participants should not qualify for state unemployment benefits.

Jeff Jordon, vice president of the San Diego Police Officers Association, was not supportive of the retiree’s actions either.

“I am appalled by the action of a police retiree, who would submit a claim for unemployment benefits following his decision to voluntary leave city employment,” Jordon said. “I believe his actions are unethical and his claim will eventually be denied by the courts. Unfortunately, the employee feels he was treated improperly by the city and this sparked the claim for benefits. While all the promises made to him by the city were not kept, his decision to pursue unemployment benefits are unjustifiable and have sparked outrage from police officers throughout the city.”

San Diego labor attorney Lonny Zilberman said the Leon case presented an interesting issue for the court system.

“It really depends on how the California Employment Development Department defines the term ‘voluntary,’” said Zilberman, who built his practice representing employers. “The (hearing officer) in this case has defined ‘voluntary’ in a pretty narrow way.”